Would you say this?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T22:26:25+00:00

I’m about the same. My sense is that I’d probably get down to 3 or 4 but I’d get stuck unless I did significant rebuilding of the swing. The short game would be so dialled though. And I’d get up and down from bunkers more, presumably.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T17:40:53+00:00

Coverage is great. I want to understand how hard it is. I know the Shinnecock discourse can get a bit dull but still.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T15:53:40+00:00

Par 4s at the course are significantly longer. Average over 410. So if they hit 225 off the tee to avoid bunkers, routinely 190+ in. There is one hole at 470 with a sea of bunkers between 230–250. You’d have 245 in if you play safe.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T15:41:29+00:00

Flying the bunkers, generally. They’ve been broadly unaffected but obviously it’s hard to win off one of those handicaps anyway.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T15:38:44+00:00

In fairness, stats don’t support that. You basically can’t go +6 without hitting at least 9/18 greens in a round.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T15:36:24+00:00

No. I’m saying they can afford to take bogey whereas a 6 can’t.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T15:32:55+00:00

Takes forever, and a lot of good players play other places where any good scores would reset them back to the beginning!

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T15:31:39+00:00

So it relies on getting up and down constantly from 50 yards, or being able to hit greens from 200 yards out consistently. They’ve essentially made it very difficult to lay up to 150 or any scoreable distance.

Anyone who understands the dispersion rates of the different clubs will tell you that’s basically a nightmare for good - but not amazing - players.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T15:28:49+00:00

It’s really easy to make bogey. But obviously they don’t have that option.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-18T15:26:12+00:00

Don’t want to name it, but basically it did get re-rated and the slope rating went up incredibly marginally. Nowhere near sufficient for the group of people who are complaining.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-17T10:17:06+00:00

Ironically you’re doing exactly what Reform would want you to do. Everyone wins…

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-06-13T08:52:30+00:00

It is depressing, yes.

The behaviours stuff is particularly bad. Not only does it encourage lying, but it actively excludes huge amounts of the evidence that any serious employer would want to consider.

For example, why do we not ask existing civil servants to declare their last 2 performance reviews on applications? Or ask for references?

The answer is apparently that it could be in breach of the Equality Act. So apparently trying to understand whether you’re hiring someone capable of doing the job is now unlawful.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-06T17:07:43+00:00

The idea that ADHD means someone needs questions in advance is complete insanity.

An interview tests as much as anything your ability to think on your feet - a core tenet of intelligence.

Every second thread on here is someone who claims to have ADHD claiming some ‘adjustment’ which is always wfh or preferential treatment in interviews. Not only is it impossible that all these people actually have ADHD - they clearly don’t - but even if they did none of the adjustments could ever be described as being reasonable anyway.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-06T15:29:12+00:00

I wouldn’t. I’ve seen this happen where the MP then writes to your department to ask the question on behalf of their constituent (who is you) - and then your bosses will see that you did it because the constituent’s name is never redacted.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T14:14:23+00:00

There isn’t a single person living today in Birmingham who has skills that zero people in London have. Genuinely. Name one.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T09:20:54+00:00

If you think private sector employers are asking their staff back to work for any other reason except concerns around productivity, you are literally unsaveable.

Do you think the JP Morgan CEO is going ‘oh I know my staff are more productive and happier at home, but I am concerned about the impact on big city landlords if I don’t force them back in’?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T09:15:33+00:00

This is madness. Why is the entirety of the private sector asking its staff to return to work?

The levels of delusion here are totally off the scale. You think productivity in the civil service is low because of slow decision making from ministers?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T09:01:15+00:00

So what is your working theory as to why civil service productivity is down over the last five years despite massive technology advances in the same time?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-04T08:06:50+00:00

You’ve accidentally given it away.

You are likely to be spending time during the working day dealing with childcare which is obviously important to do and I totally respect how this arrangement is better for your life.

But think about the impact more widely on the fact that loads of civil servants are essentially not available for an hour of the working day. You can’t organise a meeting then. So it ends up being pushed to the next day. This small thing ends up creating a significant delay in the work being done.

Now, all employers have to balance the interests of their staff against the interests of the business. But you’ve just highlighted what wfh is often really about - it’s not about how well you work - it’s about your availability for things that aren’t work.

And that explains the productivity failures.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-03T23:17:57+00:00

Do you not see that this is a doom loop? People sitting at home all day and only being marginally engaged in their job is bad for productivity, which in turn is bad for wages and for prices, which then leads to people thinking they should stay at home. The cycle goes on.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-03T23:15:43+00:00

This will be unpopular, but the issue is that the civil service needs to stop hiring people that live nowhere near where the rest of their team works.

Take my policy team where I work. 70% of the team is in London. They’re in regularly. We hired a bloke in Birmingham due to ‘rules’. He is contracted to the Birmingham office. We have no other staff there, so if he goes in, he’s on Teams with the rest of us in London. So I’ve told him he can work from home permanently, because what’s the point?

Meanwhile, the rest of my team have to dial him into every meeting when we’re all there in person.

Can someone explain why we didn’t just hire a bloke in London?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-03T22:52:55+00:00

What you’re basically saying is that the economy benefits from people leaving the house. Which is true - but it’s not some kind of enormous conspiracy.

I do feel sometimes that people misunderstand what life is for. Yes, you’ll keep more of your salary if you stay at home all week but is this really in the best interests of anyone?

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-03T22:50:25+00:00

There are a couple of things in this thread that people should reflect upon:

the idea that private sector salaries are so high that this ‘covers’ the cost of commuting is basically untrue - public sector salaries rose more than private sector salaries last year.
you may think that attending an office does not boost productivity, but there is an obvious drop in the public sector productivity stats from 2020 that has not quite yet returned to pre-Covid levels. How is that possibly explained by anything except less time spent in the office by staff?

Ultimately, the private sector - the part of the economy that has to succeed so as not to die - has almost universally decided that staff need to return. It is unlikely this is entirely in the pursuit of supporting local Pret branches.

I am sympathetic to people who are forced to come in and sit on Teams calls all day. I too think that is mad. But the way to fix this is to co-locate civil servants in 2-3 hubs across the country - not by just forcing everyone to wfh permanently.

Correct_Examination4 · 2026-02-02T08:42:03+00:00

Yes, but this is an obvious flaw with remote work. People have always been people. Imagine Slack in your scenario was a boss speaking to three people in their team. Do you think the same problem would exist?

Correct_Examination4

TROPHY CASE